H

14/10/2558
DharmaWheelViewtopicRenunciationImpossible?
ABuddhistdiscussionforumonMahayanaandVajrayanaBuddhism
Search
Search
Advancedsearch
Renunciation Impossible?
Forumrules
Postareply
Searchthistopic
Search
295postsPage9of151...6,7,8,9,10,11,12...15
Reportthispost(./report.php?f=66&p=52647)
Replywithquote(./posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=52647)
Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52647)

byJnanaSatAug13,20111:31am
mudra wrote:
With an internet connection.
Yep. With an internet connection.

And FTR, there are also monasteries with internet connections, as well as bhikus living in
wilderness hermitages with internet connections.
Top

bymudraSatAug13,20111:38am
Jnana wrote:
mudra wrote:
With an internet connection.
Yep. With an internet connection.

And FTR, there are also monasteries with internet connections, as well as
bhikus living in wilderness hermitages with internet connections.
Just
Top

byDechenNorbuSatAug13,20111:54am
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4935&p=52656#p52656
1/13
14/10/2558
conebeckham wrote:
Just so we're clear, Namdrol's not talking about "renunciation" as a "value," you
know...as in, living like a hermit, living in sealed retreat, eating only before
noon, maintaing the pratimoksha vows, not handling any money, not remaining
alone in a room with a member of the opposite gender.....etc.
Nor was he saying that such things are of no value in this day and age.
He was specifically saying, as I understand it, that the "Path of Renunciation,"
which means consciously avoiding and/or renouncing stimuli as the VERY BASIS
AND ESSENTIAL PRACTICE of one's path is not for this day and age. Anyone who
practices Vajrayana practice understands that, even at "low level Vajrayana"
practice, stimuli are not avoided. At some point, in fact, they are to be
explicitly aroused or encountered.
If my understanding of his "point" is incorrect, I apologize. But it's a somewhat
subtle point.
Exactly.
Top

And here we will have to agree to disagree.
No problem whatsoever. I may be wrong, but till now this is my opinion. I don't mind anyone
having a different one. Still, I haven't seen a rational supporting it that is different than
believing that Vajrayana doesn't deliver its promised results or greatly exaggerates its
potentialities. If a practitioner of Theravada or Zen thinks this way, I find that perfectly
natural. You seem to see it a little different, as Vajrayana practitioners needing to go
through the path of renunciation or lower yanas before or something. I disagree with that
assumption. It's not like that and I suspect you know it. The higher incorporates the lower,
but this is not a simple sum of methods. Both method and view are different in a very
practical way.
I live as a hermit.
I'm honestly glad for you. I hope you take advantage of such situation.
Sasra is a wasps' nest.
Yes, samsaric experience is as you say (in monasteries and out of them). Still, you live as a
hermit.
2/13
14/10/2558
Top

Jnana wrote:
And what I'm saying Cone, is that in this day and age (i.e. the 21st century) I
consider Namdrol's opinion on this matter to be utter bullshit. Is that clear
enough?
I personally know fully ordained Theravda and Chan monastics
who are doing perfectly well without the opinions of some Sakyapa layman, or
any other vajrayna practitioners who think that they have a superior trip
going. If, in this day and age, Namdrol or anyone else can't see past the
limitations of the medieval polemical biases of their own tradition then that's
their problem. Trying to assert medieval polemics as some sort of undeniable
Truth is laughable.
So, you ignore the content of the teachings per se. To you, the difference between methods
is just a sort of cultural underpinning. The fact that the methods in Tantra are indeed very
different doesn't seem to have any weight in you perspective. So, that's a personal opinion.
Am I to take it based on your opinion alone or you have a rational supporting your
perspective? At least a quote from a great vajrayana teacher affirming that hinayana and
common mahayana are methods that bring the same results in the same amount of time...
I'm also suspicious of opinions like vouching for the attainments of others. How do you know
they are doing well, and what does "doing well" mean to you?
The same can basically be said of Chan.
Can you substantiate that, please? Are you saying Chan is not a path of renunciation then,
right? If so, I would like you to develop a little further if you don't mind. I would like to know if
they don't consider the five aggregates something to be given up and don't practice under
such perspective.
Top

byPadmaVonSambaSatAug13,20112:30am
What about "redundanciation"? That is a combination of redundancy and renunciation.

Top

bydeepbluehumSatAug13,20112:59am
Hello, This is very interesting thread. I respect those who follow path of vinaya. I also respect
those who follow path like Dzogchen as lay master. There are so many opinions in respect to
3/13
14/10/2558
path, as many opinions as there are practitioners. I consider myself a practitioner of Dharma,
and I respect very much the teachings of Lord Buddha. However, I do not feel obliged to
follow everything that has come out on his behalf. I do not feel that not having vow is
dharmalite, because yoga is very powerful.
I also don't understand what people are calling "path of renunciation," because Theravada
practice path is anapanasati and satipatthana. In my humble and not erudite opinion, these
paths are fine, but, I feel the methods have been lost. The methods of noting do not seem, in
my opinion, to be original Buddha's method. I could be wrong, they do find support in some
sutra, but not very clear details. Satipattana Sutta and Anapanasati Sutta are very clear. In
essence, if you observe feelings and connect them to impermanence, nonself and suffering,
then, that's the very effective path. I feel vinaya is nice thought, but not really necessary if
you do intense yoga methods like a pranayama. I feel perhaps vinaya is more like dharmalite
actually, because it is for childish beings. Granted that's most of us. But if someone can
manage fully engaged sexual practice, then what's wrong with that?
Mahayana is a nice thought too. People want to develop bodhichitta practice forever. That's
a nice sentiment, but if we cannot beat our negitivities a nice sentiment just leaves us
suffering more. Vajrayana people want to be credible and incorporate all the yanas in one,
but, in my humble opinion, delaying yoga practice to accomplish interim goals and countless
preliminaries is a waste of life. It just seems like a way to perpetuate social institutions, and
now we Westerns are buying into that bag of selfdeceptions out of hope for better life and
hate for our own. But we have to be realistic, too. So much that's held out by the Tibetans as
high and mighty is really pretty normal from a yoga standpoint once you get down to doing it.
I feel Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's way of stripping tradition is very nice, but all the books and
everything looks like dharma business, and the master's pulling teachings out of dreams seems
a little hokey, but that's just my opinion. At least he has the chutzpah to go against the grain,
and his methods themselves probably work fine. Forgive me for thus saying, but all I'm
pointing out is that there's nothing in this world that stands out as the best purest practice
lineage. It all sucks somehow if you really take the time to scrutinize it.
That's why I prefer to pare it all down to the barest essential. For me and just me, that
means simple and profound yoga methods that I do very diligently. These are prajnaparamita
to me. My experience is the kleshas are subdued very well when the winds are pushed around
to the right spot and then allowed to relax and be free. It is my firm conviction that samsara
is desperately meaningless and I know I can't help any beings until I fix myself. My feeling is as
long as my body is in this condition I am useless samsara being. Continuously practicing alone
and out of sight is all the renunciation I need. When this body is dissolved or transformed at
death or whenever, I'll be free of cyclic existence with no risk of relapse and perhaps at some
point I will be suitable vessel for assisting suffering beings. I hope so.
I have chosen to find my own path in some sense. I have had to defy my teachers at times,
because I don't buy into Tibetan culture or any culture for that matter. I had a high teacher
who like playing my lifecoach and tell me how to life my life. In my world I just want the
method and to be left alone to practice. If I want to do practice and in my spare time have
orgies with Brazilian prostitutes, that's my business. Hey, whatever gets you going and not
eating lead, is a good path.
Top

4/13
14/10/2558
Dechen Norbu wrote:

You seem to see it a little different, as Vajrayana practitioners needing to go
through the path of renunciation or lower yanas before or something.
I've never said any such thing nor implied it.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

So, you ignore the content of the teachings per se.
Of course not.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

To you, the difference between methods is just a sort of cultural underpinning.
The fact that the methods in Tantra are indeed very different doesn't seem to
have any weight in you perspective.
As I already tried to say here (http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?

f=66&t=4935&start=120#p52497) I see little value in judging other traditions based on the
parameters set by my chosen tradition. And I see no value in supporting ideas like the
premise that the path of renunciation is impossible.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

How do you know they are doing well, and what does "doing well" mean to you?
Not needing to be subjected to interpreting or justifying their chosen path in the context of
Tibetan Buddhism.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

The same can basically be said of Chan.
Can you substantiate that, please? Are you saying Chan is not a path of
renunciation then, right?
Chan has a long and glorious history. It's produced some of the greatest minds in the history
of Buddhism. It offers a unique subitist path. It certainly includes elements of renunciation,
but isn't confined by selflimiting views.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

If so, I would like you to develop a little further if you don't mind. I would like
5/13
14/10/2558
to know if they don't consider the five aggregates something to be given up and
don't practice under such perspective.
If you want an accurate, informed answer I suggest you ask a qualified Chan teacher.
Top

byLastLegendSatAug13,20113:38am
We gather today, and this is a good time to thank God that Buddhism has many branches or
paths.
Top

One question. Isn't this forum bad from dharma angle? My view this my opinion that? Disputes
and replies? It seems the opposite of good dharma?
Top

It's strange Geoff, because you say that you don't ignore the content of Vajrayana teachings,
but then you propositions go against them in my opinion. If Vajrayana methods claim to be
more effective and faster, in order for you to say that the path of renunciation is every bit as
viable as Vajrayana, you must then consider that Vajrayana claims are wrong. A sort of
triumphalism of sorts, due to cultural underpinnings or other reasons. I'm sure many from
other traditions see them that way. They have to, otherwise they would be practicing
Vajrayana.
So tell me, do you believe that the practice of Tantra is superior (in terms of result and
speed) to the practice of lower yanas? Or do you believe each and every path is equally
effective?
I would find perfectly natural that a Theravadin would say that Vajrayana claims are
mistaken or are exaggerated. I would perfectly understand that a Ch'an or Zen practitioner
would say the same. They are in their right and I can't prove them wrong. They haven't
accepted Vajrayana teachings, received no empowerments, pointing out instructions, don't
practice tsa lung, don't have samayas and so on and so forth. So I can understand and respect
their position. Why would a Theravadin accept Vajrayana claims? If so, he would have to stop
practicing Theravada and start practicing Vajrayana. What I find difficult to understand is
someone who claims not to ignore what Vajrayana teachings say and then write things like
the path of renunciation being every bit as viable as Vajrayana or that monasticism is a
necessity of sorts. That I really don't comprehend.
Anyway, I respect your opinion. You are not the first person I know who has this sort of ideas
6/13
14/10/2558
and considers himself a Vajrayana practitioner. I had a friend with some original ideas about
this too. Now, I don't want you to think I'm comparing you to this acquaintance of mine, since
you seem too well educated about Dharma to make such mistakes. This is just an example of
someone who shared an opinion that has similarities with what I perceive to be yours. That's
it and nothing more is meant by this example of mine. Don't you go thinking that I consider
you similar to this fellow. Not the case at all. Somehow he saw all those "superiority stuff" as
a result of culture (medieval was also his term) and considered every path more or less the
same (including some non Buddhist paths). To him all these thesis from different schools were
attempts to describe a sort of state we reach mainly through meditation, a destination with
many routes. Whether Theravada, Zen or TB, all lead to the same. Difference resided in local
habits, sociological motives and so on and so forth. Obviously, he had no signs of
accomplishment in Tantric practice, although he followed TB for more than two decades,
something he naturally admitted, especially since he considered those signs "interpretations
of phenomena common to other paths embellished with a specific Tibetan religious
language"... or something quite like this. You get the idea, I'm sure. Truth be said, his
approach was more "academic" if you like. He spent a lot of time reading about it and I have
the idea that he had a degree of sorts, but I'm not sure. Funny thing he also considered to live
as a hermit, but if you asked me, he lived and spent most of his time alone because people
usually got fed up with him easily. He had few interests and seldom left his area. Not being
rich didn't allow him to travel that much either!
Of course, as you imagine, he spent great
amounts of time online explaining how he lived in his improvised hermitage this hermit life of
his. The guy was a riot!
Unfortunately, one more decade went by and today he is no longer a Buddhist. Now he
follows a mishmash of his own (that according to him is in accord to the spirit of the
Buddhadharma) that I personally think won't lead him far.
With kindness,
DN
edited (tiresomeness makes my already broken English even worse...)
LasteditedbyDechenNorbu(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=850)onSat
Aug13,20114:30am,edited1timeintotal.
Top

deepbluehum wrote:
One question. Isn't this forum bad from dharma angle? My view this my opinion
that? Disputes and replies? It seems the opposite of good dharma?
I'd say that according to the path of renunciation, all you do here is wasting your time.
According to other paths... probably the same!
It depends. Do you learn here? Does it help you? If so, then it's useful. I'm sure you don't spend
24/7 practicing, right? So better this than playing Call of Duty and feeling extremely angry if
a guy shoots you in the head when you were finishing planting a bomb!
7/13
14/10/2558
Top

LastLegend wrote:
We gather today, and this is a good time to thank God that Buddhism has many
branches or paths.
Nah... our is the only path. You guys are just wasting time!
Seriously, it's great that there are many paths. I honestly believe that. I'm an adept of the old
"different strokes for different folks" saying and see great benefit in the practice of any form
of Buddhadharma. This is not in contradiction with the opinions I've been expressing. The
superiority of a teaching only comes from its effectiveness regarding the practitioner, IMO.
For instance, you like Pure Land and that's what you've been practicing. For you, that's the
superior path. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, unless you feel tempted to try another
school.
I don't imagine a few Theravadin folks I know practicing Vajrayana. For them, such practice
would probably ineffective. If Vajrayana was the only form of Buddhism that had survived,
they wouldn't be Buddhists. They admit this themselves. So it's great that Theravada exists as
for them that's the superior path.
Top

byretrofuturistSatAug13,20114:46am
Greetings,
deepbluehum wrote:
One question. Isn't this forum bad from dharma angle? My view this my opinion
that? Disputes and replies? It seems the opposite of good dharma?
If that's how you perceive it, then yes.

If you perceive it as Dharma practitioners sharing their perspectives in an open and
respectful manner, so as to learn from each other and challenge our preexisting notions,
then no.
Maitri,
Retro.
Top
Re: Renunciation Impossible?
8/13
14/10/2558

Dechen Norbu wrote:

It's strange Geoff, because you say that you don't ignore the content of
Vajrayana teachings, but then you propositions go against them in my opinion.
If Vajrayana methods claim to be more effective and faster, in order for you to
say that the path of renunciation is every bit as viable as Vajrayana, you must
then consider that Vajrayana claims are wrong.
You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. There are two types of discourse: definitive
and provisional. Almost every tradition in the history of Buddhism has produced polemical
texts explaining the flawlessness of their tradition, and the inferiority of the others. I don't
consider this type of discourse to be definitive. If such explanations help other people get
through the day or sleep better at night, then that's their issue, not mine.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

So tell me, do you believe that the practice of Tantra is superior (in terms of
result and speed) to the practice of lower yanas?
The point is this: The other Buddhist traditions don't consider themselves to be "lower ynas."
We don't get to make the all the rules or define their paths for them.
Dechen Norbu wrote:

Of course, as you imagine, he spent great amounts of time online explaining
how he lived in his improvised hermitage this hermit life of his.
I generally avoid mentioning anything about myself here. But you asked a personal question
and I answered it. Nevertheless, how I choose to live my life is my business and no one else's.
Top

bymudraSatAug13,20115:15am
retrofuturist wrote:
Greetings,
deepbluehum wrote:
One question. Isn't this forum bad from dharma angle? My view this my
opinion that? Disputes and replies? It seems the opposite of good
dharma?

9/13
14/10/2558
If you perceive it as Dharma practitioners sharing their perspectives in an open

and respectful manner, so as to learn from each other and challenge our pre
existing notions, then no.
Maitri,
Retro.
That was pretty spot on Retro.

deepbluehum, first of all I have to tell you I am jealous of your 'name'. It's great. But it's just
momentary jealousy, believe me.
More to the point and I can only speak for myself but I believe some of us are in the same
vein: we argue and debate, and sometimes it gets a little wild but we're here to understand
how other practitioners from across the board of the variety of Buddhist traditions see
things, and also to learn more about our own traditions from a different perspective. Some of
us have been sparring partners for years, and probably getting better at it. Sometimes I
suspect we know exactly what the other is going to say, but we push it a little further to see
if there is more.
I don't come here to study my own tradition per se for that I work with live teachers, texts,
and dharma friends.
No names, but what a cast in this and the sister site Dhamma Wheel! We got ordained people,
curt scholars, wordy fellas who are almost impossible to understand, passionate hearts, wily
provocateurs, and a couple of completely perfect people like me (at least I think there is
someone else too...).
But bottom line is an opportunity to share and learn.
So deepbluehum, now that you are here, waddyathink about renunciation in this day and age?
Top

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Seriously, it's great that there are many paths.
Indeed it is. And I reserve the right to defend the validity of any Buddhist tradition that I see
fit to defend, at my leisure.
Top
10/13
14/10/2558

mudra wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:
Greetings,
deepbluehum wrote:
One question. Isn't this forum bad from dharma angle? My
view this my opinion that? Disputes and replies? It seems
the opposite of good dharma?

If you perceive it as Dharma practitioners sharing their perspectives in
an open and respectful manner, so as to learn from each other and
challenge our preexisting notions, then no.
Maitri,
Retro.
That was pretty spot on Retro.

deepbluehum, first of all I have to tell you I am jealous of your 'name'. It's
great. But it's just momentary jealousy, believe me.
More to the point and I can only speak for myself but I believe some of us
are in the same vein: we argue and debate, and sometimes it gets a little wild
but we're here to understand how other practitioners from across the board of
the variety of Buddhist traditions see things, and also to learn more about our
own traditions from a different perspective. Some of us have been sparring
partners for years, and probably getting better at it. Sometimes I suspect we
know exactly what the other is going to say, but we push it a little further to
see if there is more.
I don't come here to study my own tradition per se for that I work with live
teachers, texts, and dharma friends.
No names, but what a cast in this and the sister site Dhamma Wheel! We got
ordained people, curt scholars, wordy fellas who are almost impossible to
understand, passionate hearts, wily provocateurs, and a couple of completely
perfect people like me (at least I think there is someone else too...).
But bottom line is an opportunity to share and learn.
11/13
14/10/2558
So deepbluehum, now that you are here, waddyathink about renunciation in

this day and age?
Someone defined it as giving up sense objects? But my impression is that Theravada is

anapanasati and satipatthana. I can't imagine why these would not work fine?
Top

byFuRiShinSatAug13,201110:27am
deepbluehum wrote:
Someone defined it as giving up sense objects? But my impression is that
Theravada is anapanasati and satipatthana. I can't imagine why these would not
work fine?
Theravada cannot be defined simply by those two practices.

Moreover, anapanasati and satipatthana as per the Pali Canon (the definitive scriptural
authority of Theravada) are for the cultivation of dispassion for sense objects.
Top

bydaelmSatAug13,20111:40pm
Jnana wrote:
If you want an accurate, informed answer I suggest you ask a qualified Chan
teacher.
i did actually a Chinese, monastic, recognised Chan teacher, fwiw while in retreat with
him for six months. he said to practice Pure Land, and that the outcomes of Chan were now
too hard to achieve. he had changed his main practice from Chan to Pure Land, and he taught
it extensively.
caveat: i'm not making this comment in order to become a target of your ire, as Dechen
Norbu has, btw. and i will ignore most if not all comments in response, based on their
perceived intention. I'm commenting just to answer your question, and to make it clear that
the view under discussion is not as boundaried by being (a) "Western", (b) "Lay" or (c) an
aspirant Dzogpachenpo as you imply.
12/13
14/10/2558
so, take it for information, and return seamlessly to the mutual bickering and sniping without
further attention.
d
Top
PreviousNextDisplaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Ascending
Go
Sortby Posttime
Postareply
295postsPage9of151...6,7,8,9,10,11,12...15
ReturntoOpenDharma
Jumpto: OpenDharma
Go
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:mossy,Wayfarer,websat11and2guests
2015DavidN.Snyder,Ph.D.,VipassanaFoundationinassociationwithTheDhammaEncyclopedia
DharmaWheelisassociatedwithDhammaWheel.com,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com..
Chatroom
>
13/13

H

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

H

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

14/10/2558

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52647)

Yep. With an internet connection.

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52648)

Yep. With an internet connection.

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52649)

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52650)

And here we will have to agree to disagree.

Sasra is a wasps' nest.

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52651)

The same can basically be said of Chan.

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52653)

What about "redundanciation"? That is a combination of redundancy and renunciation.

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52656)

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52657)

Dechen Norbu wrote:

I've never said any such thing nor implied it.

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Dechen Norbu wrote:

As I already tried to say here (http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52658)

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52659)

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52661)

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52662)

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52664)

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52669)

If that's how you perceive it, then yes.

Re: Renunciation Impossible?

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52672)

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52673)

If that's how you perceive it, then yes.

If you perceive it as Dharma practitioners sharing their perspectives in an open

That was pretty spot on Retro.

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52674)

Dechen Norbu wrote:

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52675)

If that's how you perceive it, then yes.

That was pretty spot on Retro.

So deepbluehum, now that you are here, waddyathink about renunciation in

Someone defined it as giving up sense objects? But my impression is that Theravada is

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52692)

Theravada cannot be defined simply by those two practices.

Re: Renunciation Impossible? (#p52696)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi